India, Its Neighbours and Issues of Religious Minority

In the Indian subcontinent, whenever issues are raised that deal with nationality and religion, the public response is usually from the emotional, rather than rational standpoint. Despite being the biggest of all, India is in a tricky situation while confronting its neighbours on issues of religious minority. Its population distribution by religion is: 80% Hindu, 14% Muslim, 2.5% Christian, 2% Sikh, 1% Buddhist, 0.5% Jains and others (as per 2001-Census). However, its neighbours (except Nepal) have Hindus in minority; for example – Pakistan >96% Muslims, Bangladesh 90% Muslim, Sri Lanka 70% Buddhist. Therefore, if Indian officials raise issues pertaining to minorities in neighbouring country, the neighbours see that purely from a religious prism as if mumbling in secrete –“Of course, they’ll raise issues of Hindus, because they themselves are Hindus”.

In addition, communal riots within India hurt its credibility tremendously. Imagine an Indian diplomat in Pakistan working on asylum applications of a Hindu-family on the grounds of religious freedom during the times of anti-Muslim riots in Maharashtra (or Gujarat).  

However, constitutionally India is a secular country and the state is required to protect all citizens by law. If that is compromised, the law of court (with all its limitations) supports the victims and not the perpetrators. In the broader picture, minorities in India have significantly flourished politically, socially & economically and in proportion of total population since 1950. The Muslims (biggest minority group) were about 9% in 50s; and today (year 2011) form about 14.5% of total population. Indian education system does not vilify any religion at any level; in fact there has been a conscious and consistent effort for promoting religious diversity and acceptance since independence era. So far in my life, I have not seen a single Indian movie that promotes superiority of Hindus or demonizes non-Hindus (or punishes the “infidels”). Though things are far from what is expected in an ideal society and the pace of religious integration of communities is frustratingly slow, the foundations are strong and cohesive in nature.

On the other hand, things have gone bad to worse in Pakistan, Bangladesh and Sri Lanka.  

Minorities in Pakistan:

In early 50’s, the Hindu population in Pakistan (including today’s Bangladesh) was nearly 22% of total population which decreased to 1.6% as of 1998. There are great reasons to believe this proportion may have significantly dropped in this past decade due to high rate of forced-conversion of Hindus and migration out of Pakistan. In addition, the Islamization of the country and the rise of extremism has made the minorities easy (and often “just”) targets. Not only Hindus, but Christians, Qadianis (Ahmadies) and all other minorities have been systematically marginalized. The rise of extremism is even targeting the Shia-population (sect of Muslims) as evident by growing violent attacks in recent times.         

Clip from Tehelka's youtube channel:

  

Minorities in Bangladesh:

Bangladesh is not as hopeless as Pakistan in securing its minorities. However, the decreasing relative population of minorities paint an unpleasant picture. As of 2001, the percentage of Hindus was just about 9.6 as compared to 22% in 1951. Minorities have been systematically marginalized. Nonetheless, relatively stable democratic government and recent economic rise of Bangladesh are positive signs. For more details on minorities in Bangladesh go here:  http://www.hrcbm.org/.

Minorities in Sri Lanka:

For non-Tamilian Indians Sri Lanka’s case has been a puzzle. Given Buddhism’s birth and rise in India from Hinduism, average Indians do not see any difference between Hinduism and Buddhism. It is assumed that Sri Lanka being a Buddhist must be a close ally. However, the conflict between Tamilians and Sinhalese have been deeply woven in Sri Lankan social fabric. The ethnic conflict (Sinhala Vs. Tamil) is often perceived as religious conflict (Buddhist vs. Hindu) in Sri Lanka and most Indians fail to understand that. As noted by Heyneman (2002), Sri Lankan text books have glorified the Buddhist (or ethnically Sinhalese) kings and vilified Tamilian (or Hindu) “invaders” for many decades. The Tamilians have always been the villains in the dominant historical narrative. Sri Lanka has feed to its people anti-Tamil sentiments. As a result, Tamilian minority has not been able to integrate with the Sinhalese and Sri Lanka remains socially divided. Moreover, the scenario has been further deteriorated by absolutely idiotic Indian foreign policy of successive Congress governments in 80’s. First they covertly trained Sri Lankan Tamilian militants to fight for their political rights in Sri Lanka. When things uncovered and the issue became international, Rajiv Gandhi sent Indian soldiers to fight with the Sri Lankan forces against the Tamilian militants. What a classic case of sheer lunacy!!! Today the Tamilian armed-resistance has ended with innumerable human rights violation by Sri Lankan armed forces. The biggest losers have been Sri Lankan Tamilians.

So, what should India do?

One camp states very clearly – It is none of our business. We only focus inside of our borders. We have countless problems, why bother solving internal conflicts of our neighbours? The problem with this view is that it is too narrow. As India rises, it has to take regional (and gradually global) responsibilities. People who favour this stand often cite China and its "non-interference" policy. I think that is not a good analogy, given that the Han-Chinese have never been ethnically cleansed in other parts of the world. If Han-Chinese are in trouble internationally, I highly doubt if China will restraint. 

Another camp says – India is a Hindu dominant country. There is no other country in the world which will defend Hindu minorities in these countries. We should never let people suffer just because they are Hindus; and we must use our strength to counter that.  However, strong adherence to this view leads one to foreign policy disaster as evident by the episode of Tamil-tigers in the India-Sri Lanka relations. Going overboard and exploring military actions is never a solution for social-issue, especially for a minority community in another country.   

My take:

1)      Strictly protect citizens (especially, the minorities) in India against all sorts of hate-crimes.

2)      Provide incentives to neighbours for integrating their minorities into mainstream (e.g., trade agreements with condition of history textbook revisions, decrease in crimes against minorities etc.)

3)      The Hindu-religious organizations need to move out. Hindus in India do not need you as much as Hindus in Pakistan, Afghanistan, Bangladesh or Sri Lanka need. That’s something to learn from the Christians. Even the political fractions like VHP, Bajarangdal or RSS need to work in these countries to build schools, hospitals and to politically empower communities there.

4)      Indian politicians need to be more assertive while visiting neighbouring countries. There is no political boldness in talking about Hinduism on the banks of Ganga. Visit ancient temples in Pakistan, and then talk about Vedic civilization of the Indus and religious harmony from there.

5)      Got to do all the above things simultaneously and persistently.

Note: Secularism should never be confused with in-action for religious bigotry. Secular state should and must strongly take a stand against such hate-propaganda inside as well as outside of its borders. 

Welcome your ideas on this...